My Brother DUI

[TheFifthAmendment]

Last night the cops arrested my brother for DUI with no probable cause. He got his car impounded and went to jail for the night. This happened yesterday! I've been following Marc for less than one week and this happens....I'm SO GLAD I found this site and Marc Stevens and his logic/teachings. I've been listening to the last 2 radio shows and today I listened to yesterdays show and I get the call from my bro right after that. I told him about this site so he should be registering soon.

Is it just me or has there been a sudden increase in police activity around here....and thats on top of the increase in police presence that occurred in 2009. Everyone is getting pulled over everwhere. The state is attacking their own people, my eyes are open.

---

Oh and I forgot the details.

They pulled him over, asked him to do a sobriety test, he asked if it was mandatory and they said "no its voluntary" so he said "well I wont do it."
Then they told him that he was being arrested for suspicion of DUI.

My brother said "Wait wait, I didnt know I would be arrested for not doing the test, I'll do the test" and they told him "Too late!! HAHAHA!"
At the jail, they let him do the breathalyzer (and my brother did it thinking it would make it go away) well he blew a 0.02 and the problem didnt go away.

He demanded a lawyer and he was let go several hours later.

I just talked to him on the phone and told him to ditch the public defender after what I heard happen to the guy on the show today (the guy who's public defender waived his right to a speedy trial...remember that one?).

Our plan is to come up with a few different scenarios on paper and for him to bring it to court. His appearance is this thursday.

[boyntonstu]

0.02 does not appear to be an indication of DUI.

Breath testers can be very sensitive to temperature, for example, and will give false readings if not adjusted or recalibrated to account for ambient or surrounding air temperatures. The temperature of the subject is also very important.[citation needed]

Breathing pattern can also significantly affect breath test results. One study found that the BAC readings of subjects decreased 11–14% after running up one flight of stairs and 22–25% after doing so twice. Another study found a 15% decrease in BAC readings after vigorous exercise or hyperventilation. Hyperventilation for 20 seconds has been shown to lower the reading by approximately 32%. On the other hand, holding one's breath for 30 seconds can increase the breath test result by about 28%.[citation needed]

Some breath analysis machines assume a hematocrit (cell volume of blood) of 47%. However, hematocrit values range from 42 to 52% in men and from 37 to 47% in women. A person with a lower hematocrit will have a falsely high BAC reading.

Research indicates that breath tests can vary at least 15% from actual blood alcohol concentration. An estimated 23% of individuals tested will have a BAC reading higher than their true BAC. Police in Victoria, Australia, use breathalyzers that give a recognized 20% tolerance on readings. Noel Ashby, former Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner (Traffic & Transport), claims that this tolerance is to allow for different body types.[13]

If you get pulled over, I suggest hyperventilating prior to the blow job.

[TheFifthAmendment]

I appreciate your response Boyntonstu....but....the accuracy of the breathalyzer is not in question. The Breathalyzer results are in my brother's favor so why would I want to discredit it?

[boyntonstu]

(03-04-2012 08:51 PM)TheFifthAmendment Wrote:  I appreciate your response Boyntonstu....but....the accuracy of the breathalyzer is not in question. The Breathalyzer results are in my brother's favor so why would I want to discredit it?

My first sentence confirms the FACT that your brother was not DUI!

The remaining text was for general educational purposes.

I would ask.

Do you issue DUI citations based on Breathalyzer readings?

What is the minimum Breathalyzer reading that would trigger writing a citation for DUI?

Why was this citation created?

BTW If I do not quote a source it comes from WIKI.

Educated folks see [citation needed] and understand that it is public information from WIKI.

[NonEntity]

(03-05-2012 05:14 AM)boyntonstu Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 08:51 PM)TheFifthAmendment Wrote:  I appreciate your response Boyntonstu....but....the accuracy of the breathalyzer is not in question. The Breathalyzer results are in my brother's favor so why would I want to discredit it?

My first sentence confirms the FACT that your brother was not DUI! <--- comes from WIKI

The remaining text was for general educational purposes. <--- comes from WIKI

I would ask. <--- comes from WIKI

Do you issue DUI citations based on Breathalyzer readings? <--- comes from WIKI

What is the minimum Breathalyzer reading that would trigger writing a citation for DUI? <--- comes from WIKI

Why was this citation created? <--- comes from WIKI

BTW If I do not quote a source it comes from WIKI. <--- comes from WIKI

Educated folks see [citation needed] and understand that it is public information from WIKI. <--- comes from WIKI

[Bruce Sloane]

(03-04-2012 07:31 PM)boyntonstu Wrote:  0.02 does not appear to be an indication of DUI.

Breath testers can be very sensitive to temperature, for example, and will give false readings if not adjusted or recalibrated to account for ambient or surrounding air temperatures. The temperature of the subject is also very important.[citation needed]

.

first ....

disputing the Breathalyzer results is what Attorners do

do not argue the Merits of the Case

[NonEntity]

(03-05-2012 08:53 AM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 07:31 PM)boyntonstu Wrote:  0.02 does not appear to be an indication of DUI.

Breath testers can be very sensitive to temperature, for example, and will give false readings if not adjusted or recalibrated to account for ambient or surrounding air temperatures. The temperature of the subject is also very important.[citation needed]

.

first ....

disputing the Breathalyzer results is what Attorners do

do not argue the Merits of the Case

To expand upon Bruce's statement, "do not argue the Merits of the Case," this is what Marc's thinking is all about. If you understand Marc's thinking you will focus on other issues such as jurisdiction, cause of action and such. If you "argue the merits" you have effectively conceded that they HAVE jurisdiction and a valid cause of action. DON'T go there! ;-) They do not have a case in the first place, so don't allow them to get away with the fiction that they DO have a case by arguing the merits.

Does that make sense for you?

- NonE

[Bruce Sloane]

here is my Opinion

the only way to succeed in a conventional sense is to argue was there Probable Cause for the Stop..
if this can be proven as defective, the Evidence obtained is barred

start here,
then look at " within this State "

now, personally...

I would simply ask for an Attorney to advise me before taking any test

simply state that you are not Refusing, but are entitled to Legal Representation

Ask if You are under Arrest, or free to go

if You are not free to go, You are indeed under Custodial Arrest, and they may not proceed with any Testing without Representation

In NY, and Fla, You are written 2) tickets ..

a common law DWI, based on the Officers Opinion

and

a DWI based on the Statute, and BAC evidence provided by the breathalyzer

the .02 is a valid - common law- DWAI, or DUI " in these States " specifically that I stated

now go and read about " in this State "

and

" Jurisdiction "

" Cause of Action "

---

Your brother needs an adjournment to find " representation "

phrase it that way

then look at Marc's u-tube video's

you need much study before Court

where are You physically located ..??

[NonEntity]

(03-05-2012 09:01 AM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  Your brother needs an adjournment to find " representation "

phrase it that way

"phrase it that way" ... Why please? I'm assuming there is a good reason for you to say this, so it would be helpful to understand what that reasoning is.

- NonE

[Bruce Sloane]

(03-05-2012 09:29 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 09:01 AM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  Your brother needs an adjournment to find " representation "

phrase it that way

"phrase it that way" ... Why please? I'm assuming there is a good reason for you to say this, so it would be helpful to understand what that reasoning is.

- NonE

Obviously there is much Study needed here, esp. since DWI is regarded by the System as a slam-dunk

a "recognized " reason for an adjournment

is to find " representation "

" I need to learn about the Law "

is not considered

[NonEntity]

(03-05-2012 09:33 AM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 09:29 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 09:01 AM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  Your brother needs an adjournment to find " representation "

phrase it that way

"phrase it that way" ... Why please? I'm assuming there is a good reason for you to say this, so it would be helpful to understand what that reasoning is.

- NonE

Obviously there is much Study needed here, esp. since DWI is regarded by the System as a slam-dunk

a "recognized " reason for an adjournment

is to find " representation "

" I need to learn about the Law "

is not considered

Thanks for the explanation, Bruce.

One more related question, and I'm going to screw up the wording here out of ignorance... I understand that if a person waives the right to a speedy trial then that person can no longer make a claim for dismissal on the grounds of the government taking forever. With that in mind, is what you are suggesting above effectively waiving one's "rights" to a speedy trial? (I ask since this would seemingly be worthy of consideration before making such a request.)

- NonE

[Bruce Sloane]

(03-05-2012 09:50 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 09:33 AM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 09:29 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 09:01 AM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  Your brother needs an adjournment to find " representation "

phrase it that way

"phrase it that way" ... Why please? I'm assuming there is a good reason for you to say this, so it would be helpful to understand what that reasoning is.

- NonE

Obviously there is much Study needed here, esp. since DWI is regarded by the System as a slam-dunk

a "recognized " reason for an adjournment

is to find " representation "

" I need to learn about the Law "

is not considered

Thanks for the explanation, Bruce.

One more related question, and I'm going to screw up the wording here out of ignorance... I understand that if a person waives the right to a speedy trial then that person can no longer make a claim for dismissal on the grounds of the government taking forever. With that in mind, is what you are suggesting above effectively waiving one's "rights" to a speedy trial? (I ask since this would seemingly be worthy of consideration before making such a request.)

- NonE

hhhmmmnnnn ....

interesting postulation for someone that is " ignorant "

postponement by the Defendant, does count against a " speedy trial " invocation ..

Courts in NY hold that there is no speedy trial right for traffic infractions
this, however rises to the level of a Misdemeanor
see CPL 30.30

and

we do not know the venue of the Defendant

[NonEntity]

(03-05-2012 10:00 AM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  interesting postulation for someone that is " ignorant "

I claimed ignorance, not stupidity!

- NonE

[Bruce Sloane]

(03-05-2012 10:05 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 10:00 AM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  interesting postulation for someone that is " ignorant "

I claimed ignorance, not stupidity!

- NonE

how come You are so nice to me Today ...??

full moon has waned ..???

[NonEntity]

(03-05-2012 10:07 AM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 10:05 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(03-05-2012 10:00 AM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  interesting postulation for someone that is " ignorant "

I claimed ignorance, not stupidity!

- NonE

how come You are so nice to me Today ...??

full moon has waned ..???

You have made some points which appear to perhaps be of value to our Thread Creator, and in the interest of education I'm trying to get the reasoning for your statements fleshed out. One of my main "issues" with your posts in the past is that they tend to be in the form of curt declarations rather than explanatory revelations. At least that is the way they come across to me. It's an "attitude" thing. And the way I read your "attitude" is that it is dismissive. Please note that this may be as much my own "reading into it" as it may be your own actual (reread the "reading into it part") sense of contempt for your reader.

- NonE